25 MARCH 1837, Page 3

iBehated an Prateettingt in fartiamtut. IRISH CORPORATION REFORM.

The House of Commons went into Committee on the Irish Muni- cipal Bill, on Monday. The several clauses down to the 96th, which gives the Lord-Lieutenant a veto on the appointment of SheriffS, were rapidly gone through and agreed to.

Mr. SHARMAN CRAWFORD objected to the 96th clause, that it gave the Irish Corporations less power in the appointment of Sheriffs than was possessed by the English Corporations; and he bad understood that the principle of Ministers was identity of legislation as re- garded the two countries. He moved an amendment, to give the Irish Corporations authority to appoint their own Sheriffs absolutely, and without reference to the Lord-Lieutenant.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL could not see that the principle of justice tat Ireland was violated by a refusal servilely to copy every detail of the English Bill. Mr. Crawford had not considered that Ireland was suited because because it was proposed that Irish Aldermen should be elected by the Burgesses, whereas the English Councils chose the English Aldermen. In the appointment of officers of justice, it was desirable that the Cowl] should have at any rate a negative power; and if the English Bill were to be gone over again, he should propose a similar clause in it with regard to the appointment of Sheriffs.

After a brief discussion,—in which Mr. SHAW, Mr. Merman Jonx O'CONNELL, and Mr. SPRING RICE, took part,—Mr. SHARMANCRAW.. FORD, though pressed by Mr. FRENCH and Mr. 1Vese to withdraw his motion, persisted in dividing the Committee; when the votes were—for the amendment, 5; against it, 65.

The remaining clauses were then agreed to, and the House resumed. The report was ordered to be received on Wednesday; and Lord Joule Hessma. gave notice that be should move the third reading of the bill on Monday the 10th of ApriL

IMPRISONMENT FOIL DEBT.

On the motion of Sir JOHN CAMPBELL, the Bill for Abolishing Im- prisonment for Debt was recommitted on Tuesday. The clauses up oil the 12th were agreed to with little opposition. The 12th clause ex- empted Members of Parliament from the obligation to appear before the Commissioners of Bankruptcy to give an account of their property; and Mr. RIGBY WASON moved the omission of the words which gave Members this privilege.

Colonel THOMPSON, Mr. AGLIONEY, Mr. HUME, and Mr. HARVEY, supported Mr. Wason.

Sir JOIIN CAMPBELL, Sir R. M. ROLFE, and MT. G. F. Yonne, supported the clause as it stood.

The Committee divided; and Mr. Wason's motion for the omission of the words was carried, by 37 to 29. The words were struck out; and the clause, as amended, agreed to.

On the motion of Mr. RICHARDS, the House resumed ; and the Chairman then reported progress.

In reply to a question from Mr. Wasoe, on Thursday, Sir JOHN CAMPBELL said, that as the clause exempting Members of Parliament from arrest had been agreed to by the first Committee and objected to by the second, he should take time to consider the best course to be pur- sued; of which the House should have due notice.

REFORM OF THE CRIMINAL LAW.

Lord JOHN IkSgELL, on Thus sday, moved for leave to bring in several bills for the amendment of the criminal law. He said that he should have been very desirous to have postponed this subject, in the present state of public business, when so many important questions presseclupon the attention of Parliament, if he could have done so con- sistently with his duty. The House would recollect, that some years since a Commission had been appointed to revise the Criminal and Civil Law. The instructions to that Commission were to con- solidate the written and unwtitten law into one statute ; but it was found that this would be a most difficult matter. It was therefore deemed advisable that the attention of the Commission should be directed to a reform of the Criminal Law alone, in the first instance; and the result was a Report, laid before Parliament last session, re- commendiog that the punishment of death should be restricted to a very small number of offences. It was proposed to legislate on this subject without waiting for any digest or consolidation either of the written or unwritten law. For a long period it had been the common opinion, sanctioned by the authority of Paley, that a multitude of offenders should be drawn within the net of the law, but the extreme punishment inflicted only in a kw instances. But Sir Samuel Horrilly, to his immortal honour, bad demonstrated the itnpolicy of such a practice. Lord John said that he would not detain the House with general remarks, but would remind the House that the object of punishment was not revenge for injury, but the prevention of crime. This object was not very likely to be obtained by making the amount of punishment uncertain. There were many circumstances suggesting the chance of escape from the extreme penalty, which would occur to the simpl:: as well as the learned Thus it was, if the object of punishment was the prevention of crime, that object was in a great measure defeated— He would mention two or three instances, in order to show the reat dispre. portion which existed between the number of persons sentenced to death under the present law and the number executed. III 1335, the whole number of per- sons condemned to death in this country was 5.2d; and the number executed was only 34 In 1636, the 'mother Oi those condemned to death was 494: while the number executed was no noire than 17. With respect to certatia offences, the punishment which had taken place was in great disproportion to the nuinber of convictions. For murder there were, for instance, in 1835, 215 person. convicted. One of them was pardoned, in consequence of some infer- aridity in the indictment; three were transported for life, and 21 out of the 25 were executed. But for the crime of burglary, while there were 193 convicted sad senteoced to death, there was only one of them executed. With respect to IL* crime of shooting with intent to kill or maim, 60 were convicted, and only two were executed. As to robbery, 202 persons were convicted in 1835, and sone of them were executed.

He submitted, that the very great disproportion between the num- ber executed and the number condemned could not have a beneficial effect, especially when the peculiar circumstances of each ease must be very imperfectly known. With respect to burglary, it was extremely difficult to determine the nature of the punishment which should be awarded. In some cases burglars were executed, in others only a few months imprisonment was inflicted. The extreme uncertainty of its infliction took away from offenders the salutary dread of punishment. It was said that the recent alteration in the criminal law, by which in some instances the punishment of death had been abolished, had led to an increase of crime. If this were true, the House ought to pause be- fore going further in the same course. But he had returns to prove that such had not been the case. He would take the instance of forgery. In some cases of forgery the punishment of death had been done away with ; and he found that, taking the averages of three years Before and of three years after the amelioration of the law, the number of commitments in the first period was 155, in the second 210 ; the number of convictions hi first period 5$ 1-10th per cent., in the se- cond 71 per cent. He did not think the increase in the commitments very great, considering that many persons were prosecuted under the new law who would have been suffered to escape under the old. A htter he had received from the solicitor to the Society for Prosecuting Forgers stated, that from January to August 1832, when the capital punishment for forging checks were abolished, seven forged checks were issued ; from August 1832 to August 1833, 48-18 being the work of one forger; from August 1833 to lelarch:1835, only 25 forged cheeks and bills of exchange were issued.

"Now," said Lord John, "when we consider the awful nature of the punish- ment that used to take place for forgery, it is consolitory to think that that impitel punishment can be done away without increasing the number of offences, and at the same time increasing the security of the bankers and persons engaged in trade and commerce. I should state, that a case came before Lord Denman, when a man was tried for the capital offence of forging a power of attorney ; that person forfeited his life, and before the matter came before his Majesty in Council, I received a communication, in the name of a considerable body of the bankers of London, stating their objections to capital punishment, and also a letter from the Governor of the Bank a England, who said, that though the Beak Directors did not consider it their duty to interfere, they had no wish to MIS the capital punishment. That was a proof that they might safely proceed an mitigating the punishment, and that the two exceptions, for forging wills and powers of attorney, might be done away with."

Lord John then proceeded to show the effect of the alteration of the hw in reference to other offences, for which the punishment of death night be inflicted previously to 1827, when Sir Robert Peel's Acts for the Amendment and Consolidation of the Criminal Law were passed. In the three years previous to 1827, the number of commitments hod been 4,068, the proportion of convictions 72 per cent. ; in the three years subsequent to 1827, the commitments were 3,624, the convictions 7.6 per cent, lie thought that these returns proved that they might proceed with safety to relax the severity of the criminal code. Mr. Harmer, the solicitor, had informed him, that there was a general wish in this country for a diminution of capital punishments. In Fiance, in Bavaria, in Prussia, and in the United States, capital punishments were becoming less frequent. In France, juries were allowed to ac- company their verdicts with a decieration of extenuating circumstances, which were taken into account when sentence was pronounced ; and Lord John quoted the opinion of the French Minister of Justice, that what the law had lost in severity it had gained in certainty. But Lord John said it was evident, that the infliction of punishment was ren- dered quite uncertain by its being left to the jury to say whether there were extenuating circumstances or not. After mentioning the opi- nions of the Commissioners as to the crimes to which the punishment of death should still be attached,—and mentioning that he had con- aulted Lord Denman and Baron Alderson on the subject ; especially with reference to wounding and stabbing with intent to kill,—Lore John Russell stated the offences which it was proposed by his bills to continue capital. The first was, doing grievous bodily harm with a manifest design to kill ; the second, burglary accompanied with personal violence ; the third, robbery from the person with stabbing, maiming, or doing bodily burin with a dangerous instrument ; the fourth, setting fire to buildings actually inhabited, or to any building adjoining thereto ; (rick-burning would no longer be a capital offence ; arid Lord John

went into an argument of some length to prove that the capital punish- ment, now inflicted for that crime, prevented prosecutions and convie- Mons ; ) the fifth, setting fire to, casting away, or destroying ships; the

sixth, exhibiting false lights or signals with the design of leading away ships in distress ; the seventh, piracy accompanied with rutting,

stabbing, arid attempting to murder. He then proceeded to state the

offences for which transportation for life would be awarded. These were—administering poison ; shooting with intent to kill ; entering

dwelling.houses and putting the inmates in bodily fear, without actual violence, and other malicious injuries to the person, but without mur- derous intent. Lord John said he doubted whether the terms of trans- portation at present awarded were judiciously chosen. He thought

that seven' years was too short a term, and proposed that ten peers should be the shortest period of transportation. In this opinion he was confirmed by the statements of the late Governor of Van Diemen's Land, arid of the Chief Justice of New South Wales— It appeared from all the information which had been received, that prisoners seat out for seven years were so extremely unruly, insolent, and insubordinate, that in a very short space of time, the colonies would have suffered very sei ions and alarming mischiefs. The next term of transportation he proposed to fix at 15 years ; and the greatest term would, of course, be for life. If this plan

ubnold he adopted, it would, he thought, be necessary before long to diminish very coosiderably the number of prisoners who should be transported. He coneeivNi that the accounts which had been given, by various high authorities,

it the manner in which that punishment was now carried into effect in the vehicles would be most unsatisfactory to those who wished to see punishment roperh and effectualle applied. The error of the present system existed, as he believed, in the very great number, amounting tp between 4.000 or 5,000 convict., sent out annually to the colonies. These numbers were not absorbed in a population of decent characters, but became part of a considerable porm. lation of convicts. Crime and vice of all kinds were on the increase to a e'leist lamentable extent ; and after a short time those prisoners, instead of undergoing punishment, became possessed and were admitted to the enjoyment of great in: dulgences, and committed worse crimes than they would have committed had they remained at home.

Lord John adverted to the system of apportioning the convict la.. bourers among different individuals, the amount of the convices punish. ment depending entirely upon the disposition of his !mister. The inequality of treatment rendered transportation a most uncertain punishment— If the system of transportation was only applied to a small number of con. victs, he could easily conceive that mice a system of discipline could be established as would overcome the evils now existing ; but when, to a colony consisting of only about 100,000 free settlers, this country sent out mummify 3,000, 4,000, and perhaps 5,000 convicts, it could not be effected : and, on the contrary, the result in time would be to convert the whole colony into the residence and territory of the most depraved community that ever existed in the world. He repeated the conviction of his own mind, that it would be necessary before long to take steps, not to abolish transportation altogether,— for he could not go that length with Archbishop NVhately,—but to Testi ict and apply it to certain crimes and offences, and to particular classes of offenders, He would not now enter into the various other evils of the present sstcio, bot he would just state, that it cost this country between 350,000/. and 400,0001, annually ; aud that it required a very considerable military force to he kept up— both in New South Wales and in Van Diemen's Land—a distance too reunite for their being employed on any other service even if desired.

The Commissioners recommended, that for certain offences, ten

years' imprisonment should be the punishment ; but Lord John could not consent to so long a term of confinement for minor offences,— especially when he found that in France and other foreign countries, few offenders were imprisoned for more than two years. Besides, the prison discipline of this country was not calculated to evork reforma- tion. He did not, however, then intend to bring in any bill with respect to imprisonment or transportation ; though, as be should move to bring in bills relating to capital punishment, he thought it right to explain to the House his views respecting minor punishments— The bills which he proposed to bring in were several in number ; because it was the opinion of some persons that there were some of the matters to which those bills would have reference which required early consideration, while there were others, such as those relating to piracy and the setting tire to ships &a, which might be very well postponed. For this purpose, h ose, he ould diva: his legislation into several bills; one being to abolish capital punishments in cases ot forgery ; another relating to offences against the person ; another to abolish the punishment of death in certain cases; another to relate to robberies and stealing from the person; another to the offence of burglary ; another to piracy, and the last relating to the burning of ships and buildings. Ile must state also, that it was his intention bring a bill with respect to more than one law which had been passed abolishing capital punishment and substituting for it transportation for life as a positive sentence upon convictions for offences to which those laws applied. He should also move to abolish the punishment of the pillory.

After some remarks on the evils of the present system, by which the Judges were compelled to pass sentence of death on pi isoners for such offences as sheep-stealing, and then apply to the Home Secretary for a mitigation of the sentence,—thus keeping from the knoe ledge of the public the amount of punishment actually inflicted,—Lord John Reis- sell alluded in terms of approbation and gratitude to the exertions of

Sir Samuel Remaly, Sir James Mackintosh, Mr. Ewart, and Mr. Lennard, to mitigate the severity of the criminal code. Much had been done in that way already ; but was it not a disgrace to the country to have laws by which five hundred persons might be sentenced to death in one year ? He did think that Parliament ought to sanction the feelings of the Judges, the merciful consideration of the Crown, and the opinion of the public, and not to leave this country behind other nations as regarded criminal legislation and the prevention of crime.

Mr. EWART and Mr. Huete expressed their approbation of the coulee taken by Government ; and leave was given to bring in the bills.

FOREIGN GRAIN AND FLOUR IN BONP.

Mr. RontersoN, on Tuesday, moved the following resolution-

" That the laws which prohibit the manufacture of foreign grain, flour, and meal in bond,:for exportation, are injurious to the interests of British commerce and navigation, and unjust, in restraining the free employment of capital and labour in the United Kingdom ; whilst they afford direct encouragement and undue advantage to the foreigner in a valuable branch of trade, not only with other states but with our own colonies, and that it is expedient to alter and amend the same."

Mr. Robinson said, that if Mr. Poulett Thomson opposed this motion, he must be held to have abandoned the principles of free trade, which he had hitherto advocated, or his opposition must arise from a dread of offending the agricultural interest. But, if necessary, Mr. Robinson was prepared to prove that no injury to the agricultural interest could arise from, his proposition. To the interests of the community the present law was most injurious— Bonded corn might lie for years in the warehouses, subject to constant dete- rioration; but if the merchant wanted to manufacture it into meal or flour, he could not do so in this country, but must send it 300 or 400 miles off—to Hamburg or Dantzic—to have it manufactured there, and at the same time to pay an agent for doing in a foreign country what might be done at home. He did not see why the owners of bonded corn should not be placed on tire same funning as sugar refiners. He had been obliged lately to send cargoes of corn iu that way to Hamburg, at a great loss, for which the vessels were now detained by the east wind; but for this restriction they might have been CO their way to the markets in the West Indies. The loss to the country was not trifling ; and he believed he did not underrate the amount wheu lie said the country had lost one million sterling in the course of last year, owing to this absurd restriction. The case, however, was so gross that be saw no necessity for arguing it further.

Mr. HUME seconded the motion.

Mr. EMMETT THOMSON said, that if Mr. Robinson could carry his motion, be would not effect the object he had in view. Nay, his mo-

tion would be simply mischievous. Mr. Tbomson proposed that the flour should be ground under lock,—for that was the only method by

which the present Corn-laws would not be set aside, and the object of Mr. Robinson obtained— That was a fair proposition. If the merchante wished to carry on the trade fairly and legitimately, that would afford them the means of doing su; but the proceeding .by calculation would open the door to such fraud that he could not consent to it, and he hoped the House would not.

Mr. BINGttnst BARING supported Mr. Robinson's motion.

Mr. WARBURTON, for the purpose of putting the matter in better shape, proposed, " That the House resolve itself into a Committee of the whole House, for the purpose of taking into consideration the laws which regulate the importa- tion of foreign grain, with a view to allow the manufacture of the same iu bond, for exportation. '

Mr. G. F. YOUNG supported this amendment.

Mr. ROBINSON acceded to it, and withdrew his motion.

Mr. CLAY spoke in favour of Mr. Warburton's amendment.

Lord SANDON also supported it. He should be ashamed to oppose such a motion, when he considered the great commercial intereats of this country.

Sir C. Blume VF.RE said, that the grinding of corn now in bond would produce good ; but if it encouraged importation of foreign corn, it would produce evil.

Mr. POULETT TII03ISON was ready to go into Committee and pro- duce his plan for grinding corn in bond.

Sir EDWARD KNATCHBULL thought the agricultural interest was placed in a very difficult position by this motion— He very much doubted whether any precautions could be adopted that in practice would he found efficient to prevent fraud. If fraud were not prevented, the result would be highly prejudicial to the landed interest, lie feared that one of the objects in going into Committee upon the subject was to level ano- ther attack against the interests of the agriculturists. Peeling, however, that he was riot then in a position to resist the motion, he would consent to go into Committee; protesting, at the same time, against any attack being made against the interest to which he was attached, and which he did not think very fairly treated.

Mr. ROBINSON recommended that the House should go into Com- mittee pro firma ; reserving to a future opportunity, when there would be a fuller attendance of Members, the consideration of any plan which Mr. Poulett Thomson might have to propose.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL said, that the House would be in an awkward position if Mr. Robinson's suggestion were adopted— Undoubtedly, the proposition made by the bonouruble gentleman had met with very gem ral support, but it must be observed the general suppill t only of a very thin !louse. Furthermore, it did not appear that even the authors and supporters of the motion for the Committee were at the moment prepared to bring tbrward or to discuss any specific plan. It therefore appeared to him, that instead of going into Committee pro forma upuu that occasion, the twist curl- venient com se would he to adjourn the present debate uutil some future day, when bunourable gentlemen might be prepared with their plans. Acting upon that impression, he should naive as an amendment, that the debate be ad- journed to that day three weeks.

A division was taken on the motion for adjournment; which was carried by 39 to 28.

MISCELLANEOUS SUBJECTS.

DUNGARVAN ELECTION. The SPEAKER, on Monday, informed the House, that Mr. Galwey, who had petitioned against the return of

Mr. Power for Dungarvan, bad failed to enter into the necessary re- cognizances.

AITAIES OF CANADA. It was agreed, after a short conversation between Mr. ROEBUCK, Lord JOHN RUSSELL, Sir ROBERT PEEL, and Mr. C. BULLER, that the debate on the Canada resolutions should be adjourned till after Easter.

REGISTRATION OF VOTERS BILL. Sir JOHN CAMPBELL post- poned the further consideration of this bill till after Easter.

ADMINISMATION OF JUSTICE IN IRELAND: Mr. EMMERSON TEN- WENT'S STATEMENTS. Mr. O'CONNELL moved for a return of the pro- ceedings in the case of M.Carron, who had been tried three times for Murder at 'Monaghan, the names of the Judges who presided, of the

Jurors who were set aside, and of the Attorney- General at time of each trial— His motion was rendered necessary by a speech published in the newspapers from the manuscript of Mr. Emmerson Tennent. He would not stop to inquire bow much of that speech was spoken in the House ; but it was therein stated, that the rule introduced by the late Attorney-General for Ireland had been pro- tluetive of vicioas consequences ; and he instanced the case of M*Carron to show the impropriety of adopting the regulation of dispensing with the right of the Crown to set aside jurors. The 'Member for Belfast stated that this rule was introduced by the present Master of the Rolls, and that its vicious effects were visible in the case of which he spoke, as well as in that of a man named Carter, referred to by Sergeant Jackson. He would not say any thing of that case; but would bring it under the notice of the House immediately after Easter. Mr. Tennent said he spoke from details which he held in bin hand, and which were therefore entitled to more attention. The late Attorney. General (Mr. O'Loghlen) was accused of making a regulation by which mur- derers were allowed to escape and justice defeated. He was now commissioned to deny, in the strongest manner he might do according to the forms of the House, that there was any shadow of truth in the accusation. Mr. O'Logh- len had made a rule by which no one was to be bet aside as a juror except good cause was shown for so doing, which 1T,lo a manifest improvement upon the old practice; and now no man was set aside in consequence of his politics or te. ligion. But Mr. O'Loghlen had actually nothing whatever to do with the three. trials of the man M'Carron. They all three occurred before Mr. O'Loglilen Was made Attorney-General, the last of them five mouths before he came into office.

Mr. EMMERSON TENNENT went into some further details respect- ing the cases in question ; but with regard to Mr. O'Loghlen, dis. claimed any wish to make a personal attack upon him. Mr. O'CONNELL said, that Mr. Tennent having made charges, should be prepared to substantiate them. Mr. TEN NENT said, he had all the particulars except the dates.

Lord Moaner:Tit had no objection to give the returns moved for by Mr. O'Connell. He also observed, that some most calumnious state- ment against the Government had been published in the Ulster Times, (a Belfast paper,) on information which was supposed to have ema- nated from Mr. Emerson Tennent. BISHOPS' LANDS: PADDINGTON RAILWAY. Mr. T. DUNCOMBE. on Tuesday, moved the recommittal of the Great Western ( Padding- ton) Railway Bill, " for the purpose of ascertaining the terms upon which the Bishop of London has agreed to dispose of certain Church.. landsin the parish of Paddington to the Great Western Railway Company." In the Committee on the bill, Mr. Duticombe said, be had been in a minority of two against six on this question, on the ground that his proposition involved inquiry into transactions affecting private property ; but be maintained that the Chinch-lands were not private property. Mr. HAWES wished to protect the interests of the poor cottagers ma this property ; but he did not see any use in recommitting the bill I. order to ascertain whether Church property was private property or not.

Mr. HARVEY thought that the House was bound to protect those who from poverty could not protect themselves before a Committee-- It appeared that the Bishop of London had agreed to demise a portion of land to certain cottagers fur a term of seven years, reserving liberty to determine the demise on giving three months' notice of requiring the land for building. ground. The question then was, could a railway be considered a house ? The land won now required for a railroad ; and these parties said they should not be oarn- pened to quit at three months' notice without receiving some compensation. He thought the present was a case in which the House was called upon to interfere.

After a few words from Mr. PEASE, Sir S. WHALLEY, and Sir T. FREMANTLE, Mr. Duncombe's motions was negatived ; and the bill was ordered to be engrossed. On Wednesday, Mr. C. Russet-1- moved the third reading of the bill ; and stated, in reference to what bad passed in the House on the previous day, that The Paddington estate is vested in trustees for the benefit of the representa- tives of the lessees and of the see of London; one third part only of the clear annual rent going to the see. There is a mortgage on the estate to the amount of about 23,0001. ; and the whole sum to be received from the Great Wester& Railway Company will be applied to paying off this mortgage, and to making compensation to certain tenants whose premises will be taken from them. Not one shilling of this money will find its way into the hands either of the lessees or of the Bishop, who will derive no other benefit than an Unproved annual rent after the expiration of a certain term of years.

The bill was then read a third time, and passed.

EMPLOYMENT OF NAVAL OFFICERS. Mr. HUME, on Tuesday, moved for certain returns which would show the number of vessels of war lost at sea, and the names and ages of the commanders. Sir T. TROUBRIDGE, Admiral ADAM, and Lord JOHN RUSSELL opposed the motion, on the ground of its being unjust towards the parties aimed at, who had already undergone inquiries before Courts-martial. It was besides an interference with the Executive authority. Captain PECI1- ELL and Mr. ROBINSON could not see why the information should be refused. On a division, the motion was rejected, by 45 to 13. Mr. HOME moved for a list of the Commanders posted in the flag promotion of the 10th of January last, the length of service, and dates of the commissions of each. Ibis motion was acceded to, Mr. Hume then moved for a return of those Admirals, Captains, and Com- manders, who had been more than once employed since 1825, and the length of such employment. Admiral ADAM and Captain BERKELEY opposed this motion, and it was negatived.

Citacow. In reply to a question from Lord DUDLEY STUART On Wednesday, Lord PALMERSTON said, that although he bad certainly stated last year that he intended to send a consular agent to Cracow, and that in consequence of that intimation a motion on the subject had been withdrawn, yet he did not now intend to send any agent to Cra- cow, as he found greater obstacles to such a step than he had antici- pated. Lord DUDLEY STUART announced, that in consequence of this most extraordinary contradiction on the part of Lord Palmerston, he should take an early opportunity of bringiug the subject of Cracow before the House. Lord PALMERSTON said, he had no doubt that he should then be able to satisfy his noble friend as to the propriety of the course he had pursued. Lord DUDLEY STUART said, he very much doubted that.

EAST INDIA MARITIME OFFICERS. The House Was counted 0112 on Wednesday, (there being only 36 Members present,) during a dis- cussion on the motion of Mr. ROBINSON for the second reading of a bill to compel the East India Company to compensate certain maritime officers, thrown out of employ on the abolition of the Company's com- mercial privileges. Sir Joust HOBHOUSa opposed the bill.

THE TRINITY HARBOUR BILL was read a second time on Thursday5 on the motion of Sir ANDREW LEITH HAY.

SOUTHWARK AND HAMMERSMITH RAILWAY BILL. Mr. WILES. on Thursday, presented a petition against this bill, from persons living in Blackftiars Road. They stated that notices had been served upon them in the name of the City of London and Richmond Railway Ctelipany, but the name of the bill had been changed. The SPF:AKEZ said that this was a very serious matter; and recommended that the pr.,4ress of the bill should be suspended, and the facts of the case b:-ought before Parliament after the recess.—Agreed to.

BATII AND WEYMOUTH RAILWAY BILL. Mr. SANFORD moved the second reading, on Thursday ; but as it was stated that many of the subscriptions for shares had been fraudulently obtained, the seemed reading was postponed to the 11th of April.

IRISH CHURCH. Iii reply to a question from Sir GEORGE SINCLAUT, on Thursday, Lord JOHN RUSSELL stated, that he intended to intro- duce en Irish Tithe Bill some time after Easter, but could not say

exactly when. •

BUSINESS OF THE House. Lord JOHN RUSSELL having stated, on Tuesday, that he should bring forward the affairs-of Canada on Wednes- day the 5th of April, Mr. CHARLES BULLER complained that Lord John was taking a day on which the orders of the day for forwarding mea- sures introduced by Members not connected with Government were to have precedence; and he gave notice, that on Thursday he should move, as an amendment on any motion that stood in the name of Lord John Russell, "that it is the opinion of this House that notices have precedence on Notice-days, and orders on Order-days; arid that Go- vernment orders ought not to have precedence Oil the day reserved fog

orders in the hands of other Members." He also gave notice for the 5th of April, that " on reading the order of the day for the Committee on Canada, he should move, by way of amendment, each of the other orders of the day."

On Thursday, in reply to Sir JAMES GRAHAM, Lord JOHN RUSSELL said that he proposed that the following should be the crder of busi- ness when the House met after the recess—

The Attorney-General should upon the 3d of April have precedence in com• trainee on the Imprisonment for Debt Bill; and he hoped his noble friend the Secretary at War would be afterwards enables() to bring on the Army and Navy Estimates; if not, they would take the Army and Navy Estimates on the Fri- day following. As to what was stated the other evening by the honourable Member for Liskeard, it was not his wish to interfere with the Wednesdays on which Members might have business that they wished should come on but be certainly did wish to have an opportunity of bi inging on the affairs of Canada, as his noble ft ietul the Secretary for the Colonies thought it of im- portance that that question should be considered as at an end as early as pos- sible. He thought it would be inconvenient to fix it for the first day after the bolydays; and he had a difficulty in fixing it for the following Friday, because, if the discussion on that day should last, be would be obliged to pestpone it for a week longer, or postpone the third reading of the Irish Municipal Bill. He would therefore fix the further discussion on the affairs of Canada for the Wednesday after the House met.

Mr. CHARLES Buthea said, that be only wished to seeure a better observance of Wednesdays—not to obstruct Government business; and be withdrew his motion which stood for that evenieg, and said he would withdraw that also which stood for the 5th of April.

Lord Jone Russete., being questiored by Mr. Riciesuos, said that be should move the second reading of the Irish Poor Bill, on the 17th of April; and in reply to Mr. final/ ev, that the Church-rates Regu- lation " question " would be again brought before the House on the 21st April.

• Cnuneu-neres. Petitions for and against the abolition of Church- rates have been presented in great numbers to both Houses of Podia- Lent, but most for the continuance of the impost.

In the lionae of Lords, on Tuesday, the Bishop of LLANDAFF pre- sented sevenl petitions against the abolition ; and took the opportunity of remarking, that much stress ought not to be laid on the numbers of those who signed petitions against Church-rates, inasmuch as the greater the number of those who had to pay them, the leaa was the individual impost, and consequently the individual grievance. Thus, if the Birmingham petition had been signed by 90,000 instead of 19,900 persons, he should not on that account have paid the more attention to its prayer ; for the more extensively the rate was diffused, the less was each person intereeted in its abolition. Lord BROUGHAM said, that if a me lain sum were to be paid, it would be easier for 90,000 to pay it than 19,000; but if the sum was increased

in proportion to the numbers by whom it was to be then the por- tion of each individual might be the same in a large as in a small space. The Biabop of Lsanoaer said, that the Chuieh did nut increase in that ratio— He would contcrd, that a distinction abould be made between the petitioners on his side and those on the other. The opinions nt t Moe a u paid rates were more valuable than those of num faiere ; but it was only flit. to eetaldieh the distinction, that the rate.p tycis who petitioned for the abolition of the rates were biasetel by a peconiery intereet, and therefore this intereet, ifUlt0,

detracted from the ev.:Iglit of their whilst the rate- peyers who petitioned for the cominuence of the rate gave weight to their opinioa by the fact that, notwithstanding the weight of the bardeo, they were willing to bear it.

Lord BROUGHAM said, that the argument must be talkie, pro junto— for as much as it was worth, but no more.

Lord BROUGHAM then presented a petition from WItateley, in Oxfordshire, complaining that petitions against the abolition of Church. rates were got up under the misrepreAmtation that the object of Government was to pull down the churches. The signatures of some of the parties to this petition had been procured by that fraud. The Earl of Feeatoulai—" Wuuld the noble lord allow me to look at the signatures to that pi tition ?"

Lord BttOUGHAM—" Oh, certainly—no MarkAniC21."

Lord FAhnourti—" I see there are about twenty-nine or thirty sig. natures."

Lord BROUGHAM—" I did not know there were so many; I thought there had been only twenty." Lord FALMOUTH—" Only, it was introduced with such mini air of im- portance." Lord Bitoceitear—" I did not say one word about the number of signatures. I did not even say, like smile noble lords, that it was numerously signed considering the place from which it caine.”

Lord BROUGHAM then presented a petition from the Radical Asso- ciation of Scotland. As it was signed only by the Chairman, it must be taken as the petition of one person.

The Duke of Beccheecu wished to look ut the petition.

Lord Bnoconam—" Has the noble Duke counted the names to it?"

CANADIAN GRILVANCLS. Lord Buoucineaf meetioned, On Thurs- day, that he had intended that evening to present to the Peers a very important petition, from the House of Assembly of Lower Canada— As further steps in the other House of Perliament with respect to that colony had been postponed, he should not present the petition to which he re- ferred until after the holydays t he could mit, however, avoid expreeeing his anxious wish—he could hardly say his sanguine expectation—that they a-mild bear no more of the eighth resolution. He earnestly hoped that his noble friend would reconsider the subject of that resolution—a resolution which be regarded as fraught with peculiar injustice. He therefore trusted that it would not be persisted in ; nay, he hoped that it would not meet with concurrence in another place, arid therefore never reach their Lordships' House. If it did, he should give that resolution the most strenuous opposition.